Moore v. Civil Technology Inc et al

Filing 10

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/19/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-03083-GPG
KEYONNA L. MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL TECHNOLOGY INC., a Colorado Corporation, and
CARL BOURGEOIS, individually, and in his official capacity as Owner,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Keyonna L. Moore, initiated this action by filing pro se a Title VII
Complaint (ECF No. 1) seeking damages and reversal of the decision to terminate her
employment. On November 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered
an order directing Ms. Moore to file an amended complaint that complies with the
pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Magistrate
Judge Gallagher noted that Ms. Moore failed to allege specific facts that demonstrate
her rights under Title VII have been violated because she did not allege she suffered
employment discrimination on the basis of her race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
On December 10, 2014, Ms. Moore filed a first “Amended Complaint” (ECF No.
6) asserting a violation of the Colorado Employment Security Act and a tort claim for
defamation by libel. As relief Ms. Moore sought damages and an order “to demand the
plaintiff to stop the distribution of libel” and “to reverse the Employment Termination.”

(ECF No. 6 at 5.) Ms. Moore asserted diversity jurisdiction over her claims in the first
“Amended Complaint” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On December 18, 2014,
Magistrate Judge Gallagher ordered Ms. Moore to show cause why the first “Amended
Complaint” should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there
is no diversity of citizenship and Ms. Moore did not assert any claims over which the
Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
On January 16, 2015, in response to Magistrate Judge Gallagher’s order to show
cause, Ms. Moore filed a second “Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 8). She alleges in the
second “Amended Complaint” that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
action because her claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However,
Ms. Moore still failed to provide a short and plain statement of any Title VII claim
showing she is entitled to relief. Therefore, on February 11, 2015, Magistrate Judge
Gallagher ordered Ms. Moore to file a third amended complaint that complies with the
pleading requirements of Rule 8. Ms. Moore was warned that the action would be
dismissed without further notice if she failed to file a third amended complaint within
thirty days.
Ms. Moore has failed to file a third amended complaint that complies with the
pleading requirements of Rule 8 within the time allowed and she has failed to respond in
any way to Magistrate Judge Gallagher’s February 11 order. Therefore, the action will
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order.
Furthermore, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status will be
denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438
2

(1962). If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal she also must pay the full $505 appellate filing
fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Title VII Complaint (ECF No. 1), the first “Amended
Complaint” (ECF No. 6), the second “Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 8), and the action
are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because Ms. Moore failed to prosecute and comply with a court order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied without prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

19th

day of

March

, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3